doubledamio

I like the author’s viewpoint, but I would have appreciated mentioning that:

1. Truth does not always rely on Boolean logic. Both A and non A can be true at the same time

2. Truth is often relative, so it may change depending on the viewpoint

There is no doubt that juniors have much more difficulty starting their careers in tech nowadays.

This might be naive, but isn’t this purely a demographic/saturation effect?

i cannot wait for the word zeitgeist to leave the zeitgeist.

I’ve always been skeptical about the role of LLMs in mathematics, but this is the first time I’ve seen this argument, and I actually find it very compelling. Maybe LLMs will help us develop more horizontal understanding of the field.

Growing bonsai is still on my hobby wishlist, but I haven’t been able to provide the stability it requires due to work : even keeping regular plants alive for a few years was impossible.

Has anyone here started from scratch? I would appreciate it if someone could share their experience and point me to some relevant online content.

All these overly optimistic articles about AI solving maths problems are very annoying. Can we agree that maths is not about solving problems, but about understanding them by developing a language and the conditions for new insights? It is misleading because GPTs do provide easy access to new information, but they do not deepen understanding.

I think AI-assisted research will likely have a very negative net impact on mathematics in the long run by lowering the average level of understanding within the community.

Also, research directions are influenced by what people can solve, and this will slowly shift research toward purely algebraic/symbolic manipulations that mathematicians no longer fully keep track of.

In my work in academia (which I’m considering leaving), I’m very familiar with the common mathematical objects you mentioned. Where could I look for a job similar to yours? It sounds very interesting

To me, every profession—from software engineering to farming—has its complexities, yet most professionals can explain what they do in clear terms. When academics say they can’t offer a basic explanation, it often feels like an attempt to protect their status or avoid the effort—if not a kind of intellectual arrogance. Yes, the topics are challenging—you don’t need to throw in quantum buzzwords to convince me—but simplifying your work isn’t “dumbing it down”; it often sharpens your own understanding too.

If you can't explain something in simple terms, you don't understand it well enough

This is very nice! But I don’t quite get how 70% is considered good performance — I managed to outperform that by literally doing nothing:

Game Complete!

Accuracy: 78.6% Correct Responses: 11 / 14 Average Reaction Time: 0 ms

Thanks! I'm definitely planning to refresh my Python skills by building a small portfolio. I’ve also been considering learning the basics of Rust, but I think I should settle on a clear direction first.

I intentionally left "transitioning to industry" vague, but yes—most paths would likely involve some coding.

I'm actually working on path integrals, to which Feynman contributed significantly, but I hadn't heard about the Connection Machine! Thanks